Calculating the Spatial Carrying Capacity in Tourist Area

Heritage Tourism on the World Heritage Sites in China: An Evaluation Approach Yixiao Xiang1, Geoffrey Wall2 1Department of Tourism Management of Management School, Shandong Univeristy, Jinan, China 2Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

[Abstract] Evaluation of tourism practices on the world heritage sites seldom occurs in part because of a lack of standardized evaluative criteria. This paper seeks to contribute to filling this gap by presenting and justifying a heritage tourism evaluation criteria framework adapted from previous research, focused on three variables: heritage conservation, local community well-being and tourism (quality visitor experience), and providing corresponding indicators for each criterion. [Keywords] Heritage tourism; planning; evaluation; criteria; indicators; community approach Introduction Tourism has made heritage a major concern in recent years in both the developed societies (Hall & McArthur, 1993; Timothy & Boyd, 2003, Stubbs, 2004) and the developing countries (Nuryanti, 1996; du Cros, 2001; McKercher et al, 2005). It is believed that heritage tourism is often used as a strategy to assist heritage resource conservation and to improve sustainable local development (Hall and McArthur, 1993). However, judging from the existing literature, what is practiced on the heritage sites is often not in agreement with what is theoretically advocated (Timothy, 1999; Ross and Wall, 1999; Wall and Black, 2005). A balance among resource conservation, tourism development, and local community well-being becomes a big challenge faced by heritage planners of the developing countries including China. Tourism planning is now playing a more significant role in the eastern developing countries than in the western developed ones where there are less government interventions (Pearce, 2000). Since the literature shows that few efforts are made to assess world heritage tourism, it should be meaningful to approach the task of examining the current tourism performance on the world heritage sites by evaluating relevant plans and their implementation. With a community perspective, this paper seeks to contribute to filling this gap by developing criteria and indicators which could guide and facilitate the work of evaluating tourism plans and their implementation on the world heritage sites in China, so as, ultimately, to aid in decision- making about future tourism operations on these special sites. Rationale for the Research Sustainability Principles Sustainable development was defined in the Bruntland Report, Our Common Future, as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”(WCED, 1987:43) Since then, in spite of criticisms and debates, this concept has been embraced by more and more disciplines from the environmental sphere to economic, social and even cultural policy. Heritage conservation is of direct relevance (Stubbs, 2004) as heritage is considered to be a primary kind of resource “to sustain” with its ever-rising natural, cultural, economic, and socio-political issues which have inevitably flowed into ideas associated with sustainable development. Through research on environmental assessment, and in an attempt to combine concerns of environment and socio-economic issues, Gibson (2001) summarized six principles of sustainability or sustainable development (the two terms are interchangeable as indicated by Gibson in his work), which have been widely accepted in North America. They are: 1. integrity,

1 2. efficiency, 3. equity, 4. governance, civility and commitment, 5. precaution, and 6. immediate and long-term integration. Table 1. Sustainability principles 1. Integrity: We must maintain ecological integrity at every scale in order to maintain the irreplaceable life support functions upon which human well-being depends. 2. Efficiency: We must provide more economic opportunities for human well-being while reducing overall material and energy demands and other stresses on socio-ecological systems. 3. Equity: We must ensure material security and effective choices for all, including future as well as present generations, and in so doing reduce dangerous gaps in wealth and power between the rich and the poor. 4. Governance, civility and commitment: We must build our capacity to apply sustainability principles through a better informed and better integrated package of administrative, market, customary and personal decision-making practices. 5. Precaution: We must avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, and we must design for surprise and manage for adaptation. 6. Immediate and long-term integration: We must apply all principles of sustainability at once, seeking mutually supportive benefits. Source: Gibson, 2001 Gibson emphasized the interconnection and interdependence of society, economy, and ecology which should be conceived as a series of concentric rather than interlocking circles with the circle of economy inside the circle of society, which in turn is inside the circle of ecology, implying that anything in the smaller circles that undermines the larger (and vice versa) is weakening its own foundation. These principles help clarify the ideas of sustainable development and provide a useful basis for evaluation of the different practices guided by this concept. Sustainability of Heritage Resource Conservation In responding to sustainability in the area of heritage, Rodwell (2003) proposed principles involving “(1) the wise use of resources to ensure their continuity of supply; (2) minimum intervention into fabric and cultural identity (physical, social, economic, artistic); and (3) constructive evolution as opposed to destructive evolution.” It should be noted that these principles accept the supply function of heritage (and the “client” could be people around and afar) and allow change and development (but only constructive), and that the proponent took heritage conservation and development as dialectical and complementary. The emphasis of heritage conservation went through several shifts from conserving the heritage resource itself by the late 1970s to more attention to visitor management during the 1980s, and then to greater attention given to the human dimension of heritage in terms of the allocation of resources since the 1990s (Hall and McArthur, 1998). It is believed that heritage management should provide services not only for visitors but also for all stakeholders. Stakeholders are the individuals, groups and organizations with an interest in a common heritage management problem or issue and are directly influenced or affected by the actions or non- actions taken by others to resolve the problem or issue (Gray, 1989; Hall and McArthur, 1998). Here it is argued that, drawing on Robinson (1999), the local communities living around the heritage site with people who may or may not directly participate in heritage-related activities are key stakeholders who should not be ignored, as they are the very people who are bound to live with the impacts and consequences of heritage activities (Wall, 1996). The sustainability of their life is essential to the holistic sustainability of the heritage resource. World Heritage and Principles of Heritage Tourism According to Hewison (1989: 16), heritage is “that which a past generation has preserved and handed on to the present and which a significant group of population wishes to hand on to the future.” The UNESCO definition of World Heritage may lend more understanding to heritage from an international point of view. World heritage, designated and listed by the World Heritage

2 Convention (WHC), is in general a rare, fragile, non-renewable resource with special historic, scientific, or esthetic qualities, and of universal value to the whole world (summarized by the authors from UNESCO, 1972). The general objectives of WHC are to enhance worldwide understanding and appreciation of heritage conservation. Many cases have shown that the designation can, in fact, attract more tourists and thus increase the economic prosperity and status of the place where the world heritage is located. Therefore, many state parties (especially those in the developing world) consider the designation of world cultural heritage site to be beneficial in both political and socio-economic (du Cros &McKercher, 2000; Harrison, 2005). Principles of Heritage Tourism The World Tourism Organization (WTO) has recognized that heritage has become a component in almost 40% of all international trips undertaken (WTO, 2003). The attempt at clarifying the concept of heritage tourism nevertheless remained insufficient. The World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1992) defined heritage tourism as an immersion in the natural history, human heritage, arts, philosophy and institutions of another region or country. Poria et al. (2001: 1049) conceptualized heritage tourism as “a subgroup of tourism, in which the main motivation for visiting a site is based on the place’s heritage characteristics according to the tourists’ perception of their own heritage” based on the three types of heritage tourists they identified. This definition has been criticized by some researchers like Garrod and Fyall (2001), who claimed it is too much demand-sided and fails to consider the perspective of those who actually supply the heritage tourism experience which is believed to be the most essential element of this kind of tourism. In searching for a holistic understanding of heritage tourism, Silberberg (1995:361) directed people’s attention to the destination community by defining cultural tourism, of which cultural heritage tourism is a part, as “visits by persons from outside the host community motivated wholly or in part by interest in historical, artistic, scientific or lifestyle/heritage offerings of a community, region, group or institution.” Laws and Pan (2004) also argued that heritage is supposed to play a dual role in attracting visitors to a certain destination while fulfilling the social, cultural and recreational aspirations of locals. It is contended that, ideally, heritage tourism should bring economic benefits to host communities and provide a significant means and motivation for them to manage their heritage and continuing traditions. Therefore, to synthesize the above discussion, the key principles underpinning a holistic understanding of heritage tourism could be as follows according to Xiang and Wall (2005): (1) it is based on cultural or natural heritage resources; (2) it provides a special visitor experience particularly of the unique cultural, natural or historical attractiveness of a certain site; (3) it undertakes an educative role in cultivating awareness of heritage conservation in both the visitors and the heritage managers and owners, including the local residents. Meanwhile, it also contributes financially to the conservation of heritage resources; (4) it generates economic benefits for local communities and helps them to sustain their life traditions and cultural identities which are an integral part of the heritage environment. In addition to providing enjoyable experience with heritage attractions, the essential functions of heritage tourism are promoting resource conservation and sustainable local development. Heritage tourism will not be successful without effective planning and management (Hall & McArthur, 1998). A fundamental mission of heritage planning and management is to guide tourism practice to ensure good operations of all the functions, as each is basic to the overall success of heritage tourism. Conversely, it could be a meaningful approach to assess the tourism operation through evaluating tourism planning in terms of how well the three aspects are practiced under its guidelines. Criteria and Indicators for Evaluation An Evaluation Framework

3 Literature review shows that there were few practical assessments of heritage tourism planning and practice on specific locations partly owing to the lack of standardized evaluative criteria since heritage tourism has emerged only in recent decades as a research focus. Deriving from the aforementioned principles, building upon Ross and Wall’s Ecotourism Paradigm (1999), this paper discusses a framework which indicates the ideal relationship among the three relevant variables: heritage resource, local community and tourism (with quality visitor experience as the essential element) (see Figure 1). It maintains that the sustainability of heritage tourism lies in the healthy relationship among the three aspects. Ideally, the heritage resource, local community and tourism (quality visitor experience) may each benefit the other in a synergistic and symbiotic

way. To be specific,

communityi

ocal L Heritage resource Heritage 1

Management

Planning and and Planning Tourism

Source: Adapted from Ross and Wall’s (1999) Ecotourism Paradigm. Figure 1. An evaluating framework for heritage tourism (1) It should protect the heritage resource and its environment. It should maintain least impact on the integrity and authenticity of the heritage resource, finance conservation with the money it generates, and increase conservation awareness and understanding among tourists and locals. (2) It should enhance the local economy and promote local community well-being. It should help to promote pride in the heritage among the local people and, provide a means of living for them, especially those whose livelihoods are affected by use limits placed on heritage resources, and promote local involvement in both benefit sharing and decision making. (3) It should provide quality tourist experiences with the heritage attractions. It should provide agreeable service facilities, and provide tourism products for visitors to have enjoyable learning experiences. To assist in evaluation, some generic indicators1 are suggested. Adherence to each of the criterion is necessary for the development of sustainable tourism at heritage sites. Relevant Indicators Indicators are “a set of rules for gathering and organizing data so they can be assigned meaning” (quoted in Seasons, 2003). The use of indicators is increasingly common among managers and researchers for site-specific assessments of social and biophysical changes and impacts (Stankey et al., 1990; Wallace, 1993). For the purpose of this study, the following sets of relevant indicators are developed to go with each criteria discussed above. Table 2. Indicators for each criterion Criteria Corresponding indicators Sustainability 1. resource integration and authenticity

1 Site-specific indicators are yet to be given in that this paper presents only the first phase of the 1st authors’ PhD research supervised by the 2nd author . The latter phase, the field research is still undergoing.

4 of heritage a. the condition of existing cultural and natural heritage resource resource b. the condition of the resource environment -air, water, plants, soil, etc. conservation 2. laws and institutional guarantee for conservation 3. status of participation of the local communities in conservation 4. resource and environmental education (education center, presence of codes of behavior towards the resource) 5. monitoring mechanism 6. share of tourism revenue going back to finance conservation. Sustainability 1. development of competitive quality tourism products of tourism 2. information availability for tourists (information center, road signs) (quality visitor 3. quality of guides and interpretations experience) 4. tourist purchase of local commodity 5. frequency of tourist-local interactions and attitudes 6. tourist perception of the authenticity of both heritage attraction and local tourism commodities 7. safety for tourists 8. extent of use of transport 9. method of waste disposal 10. architecture style and material used for building. Sustainability 1. decent livelihood opportunities (locals selling products to tourists or supplying of Local stores, etc.) community 2. poverty incidences and alleviation in tourist areas (tourism- 3. numbers of tourism businesses owned and operated by the locals related) 4. percentage of staff employed by tourism businesses from the local communities, and job structure of the locals (percentages of local job opportunities) 5. local communities’ share of profits from tourism (parking fee, entrance fee, etc.) 6. tourism income of the local, and the average percentage it takes among their total income 7. training for locals to acquire competence and skill for participating heritage conservation and heritage tourism 8. respect for local intellectual property as indicated by laws prohibiting the trading in these assets 9. local’s accessibility to heritage as tourism resource and use of tourism facilities 10. gender equality in the employment esp. concerning the locals 11. local community participation in decision making relating to tourism development of heritage resource, including：community involvement in the planning, research and decision-making process and community satisfaction with tourism practice and heritage conservation 12. percentage of leaders of heritage conservation and tourism from local community 13. resettlement and compensation 14. education opportunity of the local people. According to Kreutzwiser (1993), indicators may be an effective means for site-evaluations provided they are practical, facilitate prediction, sensitive to temporal and spatial variation, and are relevant to a valid conceptual framework. Indicators are intended to be site specific, and ideally should be selected and approved by people who know the area or site being evaluated and who understand the criteria. The use of indicators as a tool for evaluating the sustainable development of heritage tourism will be more likely to succeed if the indicators are developed in consultation with all stakeholders, particularly with local community representatives. The generic indicators are still to be tested, readjusted and refined when applied to the evaluation of tourism practice on a specific heritage site, and the socio-economic context should always count. Conclusions and Discussion Heritage tourism has been growing at a great speed with the value of heritage being more and more recognized by various parts of society including governments, the tourism industry, visitors, and the local people. This is particularly stimulated by the World Heritage designation of the World Heritage Convention of the UN. The evaluation, monitoring and control of the activities undergoing on the world heritage sites so as to keep a balance among resource conservation, tourism development, and local community well-being should become an important commitment for heritage planners and managers of countries like China which is rich in cultural and natural heritage and whose sustainable development is more focused on economic development and

5 poverty alleviation. This paper has presented and justified a model which can be used for evaluating tourism operations on the world heritage sites in China. It is maintained that a balance among resource conservation, tourism development, and local community well-being should be a fundamental goal for heritage and tourism planners and managers. The evaluation of heritage tourism could be approached by examining how well the goals and objectives of tourism plans are met; i.e., whether they observe the principles of conserving the heritage resource, providing quality tourism experiences, and improving local life, and whether a symbiotic relation among the three is created. For each of the three fundamental principles, a set of generic indicators have been provided to assist in evaluation. Drawing on Wall (1996), thorough measurement of all aspects and implications of tourism are almost impossible to acquire given the multitude of interrelated variables involved. Adopting a community approach, this research is more focused on the links between heritage and people in the community. It is a challenge for researchers and professionals to make the available indicators more practical and applicable. In the follow-up research, the criteria and indicators presented in the paper will be pilot-tested in several Chinese world heritage sites so as hopefully to improve their practicability and applicability. The use of indicators for evaluating the sustainable development of tourism on the world heritage sites will have a greater chance to succeed if the indicators are developed in consultation with all stakeholders, particularly with local community representatives. The social-political environment and the institutional mechanisms, such as legislation, are also factors that should not be ignored for successful evaluation.

References Barber, K. (1998). (ed.) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press. Cruz, R.G. (2003). Towards Sustainable Tourism Development in the Philippines and Other Asean Countries: An Examination of Programs and Practices of National Tourism Organizations. PASCN Discussion Paper No. 2003-06, Philippines. Du Cros, H. and McKercher, B. (2000). World heritage listing and ‘best intentions’: A case study from Australia. In M. Robinson, N. Evans, P. Long, R. Sharpley, and J. Swarbrooke eds., Tourism and heritage relationships: global, national, and local perspectives. Sunderland: the Center for Travel and Tourism in association with business Education Publishers Ltd. Du Cros, H. (2001). A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourist research, No.3, 165-170. Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (2001). Heritage tourism: A question of definition. Annals of tourism research, 28(4), 1049-1052. Gibson, R.B. (2001). Specification of Sustainability-Based Environmental Assessment Decision Criteria and Implications for Determining Significance in Environmental Assessment, research project synthesis paper prepared under contribution agreement with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Research and Development Programme, 10 September, 2001. Gray, B. (1989). Collaboration: Finding common grounds for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hall, C.M. and McArthur. (1993). Heritage management in New Zealand and Australia. Auckland: Oxford University Press. Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S. (1998). Integrated heritage management. London: The Stationalry Office. Harrison, D. (2005). Introduction: Contested narratives in the domain of World Heritage. In Harrison, D. and M. Hitchcock (eds.). The Politics of world heritage: Negotiating tourism and conservation. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Hewison, R. (1989). Heritage, an interpretation. In D.L. Uzzell (Ed.). Heritage interpretation: The natural and built environment. London: Belhaven, 15-22. Kreutzwiser, R. (1993). Desirable attributes of sustainability indicators for tourism development. In: J. Nelson, R. Butler, & G. Wall (Eds.). Tourism and sustainable development: Monitoring,

6 planning, managing. Department of Geography Publication Series No. 37, Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo, 243-247. Laws, E, and G. W. Pan. (2004). Heritage sites as tourism assets for Asian Pacific Destinations: insights from ancient Europe Tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol.9, No.3. 267-280 Leask, A., and Fyall, A. (2000). World heritage sites: Current issues and future implications. In Robinson, M., Evans, N., Long, P., Sharpley, R., and J. Swarbrooke (eds.). Tourism and heritage relationships: Global, national and local perspectives. UK: Centre for Travel and Tourism in association with Business Education Publishers Ltd. McKercher, B, Ho, S. Y., and du Cros, H. (2005). Relationships between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. Tourism Management, 26(4), 539 - 548 Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of tourism research, 23(2), 249-260. Pearce, D. (2000). Tourism plan reviews: Methodological considerations and issues from Samoa. Tourism Management, 21, 191-203. Poria, Y., Butler, R. W. and Airey, D. (2001). Clarifying heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 1047-1049. Robinson, M. (1999). Collaboration and cultural consent: Refocusing sustainable tourism. Journal of sustainable tourism, 7(3-4), 379-387. Rodwell, D. (2003). Sustainability and the holistic approach to the conservation of historic cities. Journal of architectural conservation, 1, 58-73. Ross, S. and Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Towards congruence between theory and Practice. Tourism Management, 20, 123-132. Seasons, M. (2003). Indicators and core area planning: Applications in Canada’s Mid-sized cities. Planning practice and research, 18(1), 63-80. Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage places. Tourism management, 16(5), 361-365. Stankey, G., D. Cole, R. Lucas, M. Peterson, and S. Frissen. (1985). The limits of acceptable change system for wilderness planning. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service. Timothy, D.J. (1999). Participatory planning: a view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of tourism research, 26, 371-391. UNESCO (1972) The world heritage convention. Paris. Wall. G. (1996). People outside the plans. In W. Nuryanti (ed). Tourism and culture: Global civilization in change? Proceedings of the Indonesia-Swiss Forum on Culture and International Tourism, Yogyakarta, 1995. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. 130- 137. Wall, G. and Black, H. (2005). Global heritage and local problems: Some examples from Indonesia. In Harrison, D. and M. Hitchcock (eds.). The Politics of world heritage: Negotiating tourism and conservation. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Wallace, G. N., and Pierce, S. M., (1996). An evaluation of Ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 843-873. Williams, K. (2005). The meaning and effectiveness of World Heritage designation in the USA. In Harrison, D. and M. Hitchcock (eds.). The Politics of world heritage: Negotiating tourism and conservation. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Tourism Organization. (1992). Guidelines: development of national parks and protected areas for tourism. World Tourism Organization, Madrid. World Tourism Organization. (2001). Cultural Heritage and Tourism. World Tourism Organization: Madrid. World Tourism Organization. (2003). http://www.world-tourism.org/ Xiang, Y. and Wall, G. (2005). Heritage conservation and local communities: Pressing issues in the developing countries. In the proceedings of the 3rd Sino-Korea International Tourism Conference, Aug, 2005, Weihai, China.

7 Determinants of Length of Stay: A General Ordinal Logit Approach Yang Yang1, Kevin. K.F. Wong1, Jie Zhang2 1School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China 2Institute of Tourism Studies, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

[Abstract] Length of stay is a very important index for reflecting the consuming level of tourists in certain destinations. This study uses the data set from tourist survey in Yixing to investigate potential factors influencing the length of stay for tourists. Through the general ordinal logit model, it is discovered that distance, age (together with the variable of square of age), package tour, transportation, motivation, past visitation, assessment of accommodation is major determinants. Tourists with sight-seeing purpose stay shorter than those with VFR and vacation purpose. Also, tourists taking train stay significantly longer than those taking coach/bus and self- drive travelers. In addition, repeat tourists are more likely to spend more time in Yixing. By holding other variables as average value, the effect of explaining variable on the probability is drawn to depict some non-linear effects in the model. [Keywords] Length of stay; general ordinal logit; Yixing Introduction In tourism industry, one of the most important indices measuring tourists’ demand and experience is the length of stay. This index is used to measure the total amount of time spent by tourists in a particular destination. Also, it is an important index to reflect the consuming level of tourists. Generally speaking, the longer tourists stay in particular place, the more service and goods they would consume. Thus, considering the multiply effects of tourism industry, the long duration of tourists is considered to be beneficial to local economies (Archer & Shea, 1975). A large amount of literary has documented on tourism demand (Lim, 1997; Song & Li, 2008). However, most of these studies focus on macro tourism demand with aggregated data and regard that tourists in certain groups are homogeneous. Few studies have investigated on tourism demand function of individual tourist. By analyzing individual demand model, socio demographic attributes of tourist can be taken into consideration, which makes the specified model more reliable and appropriate. Literature Review To further discuss the past researches on this topic, five categories of determinants of length of stay are discussed respectively. They are economic variables, distance, social-demographical variables, past traveling experience, vacation characteristics and destination attributes. Economic Variables According to classic demand theory, consumers’ income and the price of product determine the amount that individual consumes. People with higher disposable income are more likely to consume more commodities. In the same way, regarding the experience in a destination of each day as a singer product, people with higher disposable income are inclined to purchase more products, staying longer in the destination. One the other hand, the price of product, measured by total expenditure per day, has the negative effect on the demand of stay for tourists (Alegre & Pou, 2006, , 2007; Gomes de Menezes, Moniz, & Cabral Vieira, 2008; J. Mak & Moncur, 1979; James Mak, Moncur, & Yonamine, 1977; Silberman, 1985; Walsh & Davitt, 1983). The more individual spends each day, the fewer days he will stay. Distance The distance from the residence to destination is another important factor influencing the length of stay. According to Song and Witt (2000), the cost of a trip can be divided into two

8 components: the fixed cost, comprising the transportation cost from place of residence to the destination, and the varied cost, including the cost of living for tourists in the destination. In order to obtain the higher utility from a trip, a rational tourist is hypothesized to balance the proportion between the fixed cost and the varied cost (Smith, 1995). The tourist traveling from a more distant place of residence with higher fixed cost, will increase the varied cost in destinations, to make the proportion between the two components optimal. In general, long-haul tourists may stay longer than those from nearby origins (Thunberg & Crotts, 1994; Walsh & Davitt, 1983). Social-demographic Variables Firstly, tourists of different age have different propensity on the length of stay. Many studies argued that the relationship between the length of stay and age is non-linear. Older people are not always stay longer than young people. Fleischer and Pizam (2002) found that the trip duration of senior travelers changes with age. For Israel seniors between the age of 55 to 65, the increase of leisure time and household income results in an increase in the number of vacation days. For those older than 65, the declination of incomes and the deterioration of health cause a decrease in the number of vacation days. Furthermore, family life cycle plays a indispensable role in duration choice (Oppermann, 1995). Family life cycle refers to the progressive stages through which individuals and families proceed over time. It describes how the family passes through alternative phases of relative want and plenty (Lawson, 1991). Lawson (1991) found that tourists are different across the family life cycle in the type of length of stay. Besides, the length of stay has been found to be dependent on national cultural background. Money and Crotts (2003) studied German and Japanese visitors to the US, and found that Japanese visitors spend much less nights in the US, compared with German visitors. Moreover, other social-demographic variables, like individual’s education level (Gokovali, Bahar, & Kozak, 2007) and professions (Alegre & Pou, 2007), also have been discovered to be related to tourists’ duration. Past Traveling Experience First, familiarity gained from past traveling experience also plays a role in the decision of duration. Repeat visitors always stay longer in singer destination (Oppermann, 1997; Uysal & McDonald, 1989). Furthermore, annual traveling frequency has also been reported as a determinant of length of stay (Fleischer & Pizam, 2002). As experience on international tourism increases, tourists are more inclined to stay longer in an international destination (Gokovali, Bahar, & Kozak, 2007). Trip Characteristics Different traveling motivations result in distinct length of stay. For different purpose, tourists participate in different activities and make different itinerary for trips, which require different duration (Andreu, Kozak, Avci, & Cifter, 2005; Kim & Prideaux, 2005; Seaton & Palmer, 1997) . Destination Attributes Gokovali, Bahar and Kozak (2007) emphasized the importance of satisfaction on the duration of stay. It was argued that, as long as tourists make the decision for the longer stay, they become more aware of facilities and services at the destination where they are in. Also, the perceived attractiveness and image of the destination will stimulate the duration of stay (Gokovali, Bahar, & Kozak, 2007). Finally, some other attributes, such as annual rainfall (J. Mak & Moncur, 1979), crowding (Uysal, McDonald, & O'Leary, 1988), also, tend to exert effects on length of stay on tourists in particular destinations. Background of Study Area Yixing, a city of Jiangsu Province in Eastern China, locates adjoin Anhui and Zhejiang Province, facing Taihu Lake in the east. Owing to the ideal natural condition, Yixing has a highly developed pottery industry which was established nearly 2000 years ago. Therefore, Yixing is

9 regarded as “Capital of Pottery” in history. During these years, high-speed tourism development has been witnessed. Yixing has very beneficial marketing potential for tourism development, because of its centre location in Yangzi Delta, which is one of the most developed areas all over China, with 4,247 US dollar of GDP per capita in 2004. In 2005, the tourism arrivals to Yixing reached 3,018,200, with 3,370,000,000 RMB receipt in tourism industry. There are 12 star-rated hotels, of which 2 are four-star. Also, Yixing, named “national outstanding tourism city,” possess four 4A scenic spots, which is rarely seen in other cities of the same level. Methodology Model Specification The ordinal regression model is commonly presented as a latent variable model. Deﬁning y∗ as a latent variable ranging from −∞ to +∞, the structural model is * yi    Xi   i where i is the observation and ε is a random error The measurement model for divide y∗ into J ordinal categories: y  m   y*   i if m1 m for m  1 to J where the cut points τ 1 through τJ−1 are estimated. We assume τ0 = −∞ and τJ = +∞. In this paper responses in the model are: 1=one day, 2=two days, 3=three days, and 4=four and more days. The continuous latent variable can be thought of as the propensity to stay longer in the destination. The probability of an observed outcome for a given value of x is the area under the curve between a pair of cutpoints. The ordinal regression model can also be developed as a nonlinear probability model without appealing to the idea of a latent variable. Here we show how this can be done for the ordinal logit model. First, deﬁne the odds that an outcome is less than or equal to m versus greater than m given X: Pr( y  m | ) odds  m|m ()  for m = 1 to J – 1 Pr(y  m | ) The log of the odds is assumed to equal:

Pr(y  1| ) ln     Pr(y  1| ) 1 Description of the Data Set The data used in the paper come from the marketing survey of the master tourism planning in Yixing. The survey was conducted in Yixing from July to August, 2004, with 1000 interviews. Due to the lack of residence information in many answered questionnaires, only 417 samples are included in the analysis. In the present study, the length of stay for each tourist (for the dependent variable) was ordered from one day (= 1) to four day and above (= 4). The selection of explanatory variables for this study is guided by the past research. Three categories of variables are considered. The first category includes variables representing individual attributes, such as age. It is assumed that age exert non-linear influence on the duration of tourists. The second group of variables is comprised of trip characteristic variables, such as traveling distance, package tour, type of transportation, motivation, and previous visitation to Yixing. The third category includes perceptual variables that measure the quality of service in destination, such as assessment of accommodation,

10 transportation, tour guides, entertainment and shopping. Table 1 summarizes the variables used in this study and their reference categories. Table 1. Summary of the explanatory variables 1. Individual attributes Age Age of the reference person (in years) 2. Trip characteristic Distance Distance between Yixing and the residence of tourist (in kilometers) Package tour 1 if the tourist is in package tour, 0 otherwise Type of transportation 1 if coach/bus, 2 if self-drive, 3 if airplane, 4. if train (reference) Motivation 1 if sight-seeing (reference), 2 if vacation, 3 if VFR, 4 if business, 5 if research and study Previous visitation 1 if no previous visitation, 2 if one to two times, 3 if three to four times, 4 if five times and above (reference) 3. Perceptual variables Assessment of accommodation 1 if bad, 2 if neutral, 3 if good, 4 if fairly good, Assessment of transportation 1 if bad, 2 if neutral, 3 if good, 4 if fairly good, Assessment of tour guides 1 if bad, 2 if neutral, 3 if good, 4 if fairly good, Assessment of entertainment 1 if bad, 2 if neutral, 3 if good, 4 if fairly good, Assessment of shopping 1 if bad, 2 if neutral, 3 if good, 4 if fairly good, Empiric Results Through Stata 9.0 software, ordinal logit models with different specifications are estimated. Table 4 summarizes the results from the duration models with different assessment variable. The results show that nearly all variables included in the models have a significant effect on the length of stay and the effects are generally in line with findings reported in the previous research. The study suggests that distance is a significant determinant of duration. The longer one travel from the residence, the more likely one is to stay longer. Also, as hypothesized, both age and the square of age (age_square) are significant, indicating the non-linear relationship between age and duration. For discrete variables, such as transportation, motivation and past visitation, Wald test is applied to test the overall significance of the group of variables, and the result show that they are all significant at 0.05 level. Moreover, parameter estimates of each model vary little, demonstrating that the ideal robustness of the model estimation. In Table 2, Model 1-5 are compared based on chi-test to investigate which perceptual variable is more important for tourists’ duration, and the result suggests assessment of accommodation is the only factor that determine the length of stay significantly. Therefore, it is concluded that the accommodation assessment is very important in simulating the length of stay. However, the approximate LR test for parallel regression assumption indicates the parallel regression assumption is violated in this model. Therefore, Wald test by Brant (1990) is used to test the parallel regression assumption for each variable individually. The result of the test suggests that the largest violations are for package tour, assessment of accommodation, which implies that these variables are mis-specified in the model. Table 2. Estimation result of ordinal logit model variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 distance 0.0004** 0.0004** 0.0004** 0.0004** 0.0004** (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0002) age -0.143*** -0.145*** -0.138*** -0.140*** -0.145*** (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) (0.048) age_square 0.002*** 0.002*** 0.002*** 0.002*** 0.0024*** (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) package tour 0.765*** 0.663*** 0.706*** 0.701*** 0.682*** (0.254) (0.253) (0.252) (0.251) (0.252) Transportation (df) 33.93(3)*** 32.59(3)*** 32.22(3)*** 32.10(3)*** 32.12(3)***

11 coach/bus -1.725*** -1.621*** -1.644*** -1.631*** -1.640*** (0.407) (0.405) (0.406) (0.405) (0.406) self-drive -2.379*** -2.306*** -2.297*** -2.294*** -2.296*** (0.422) (0.419) (0.419) (0.419) (0.421) Airplane -0.545 -0.439 -0.507 -0.542 -0.457 (0.991) (0.982) (0.974) (0.982) (0.975) Motivation (df) 48.15(5)*** 53.66(5)*** 51.10(5)*** 51.74(5)*** 50.30(5)*** Vacation 0.688*** 0.702*** 0.701*** 0.709*** 0.691*** (0.258) (0.259) (0.258) (0.260) (0.259) VFR 1.696*** 1.979*** 1.826*** 1.862*** 1.892*** (0.414) (0.419) (0.412) (0.408) (0.408) Business 1.000** 0.917** 0.969** 0.968** 0.924** (0.451) (0.452) (0.449) (0.454) (0.451) Research 3.647*** 3.671*** 3.638*** 3.662*** 3.535*** (0.611) (0.605) (0.606) (0.613) (0.612) Study 1.555*** 1.748*** 1.676*** 1.687*** 1.635*** (0.503) (0.502) (0.498) (0.501) (0.500) past visitation (df) 28.50(3)*** 28.55(3)*** 57.88(3)*** 27.53(3)*** 27.44(3)*** first-time visit -1.891*** -1.899*** -1.872*** -1.864*** -1.856*** (0.402) (0.398) (0.399) (0.399) (0.398) 1 time to 2 times -1.301*** -1.269*** -1.264*** -1.256*** -1.270*** (0.383) (0.378) (0.380) (0.380) (0.380) 3 to 4 times -0.444 -0.463 -0.472 -0.475 -0.475 (0.483) (0.477) (0.478) (0.478) (0.478) assessment of 0.375** accommodation (0.150) assessment of -0.195 transportation (0.147) assessment of tour 0.077 guides (0.137) assessment of 0.029 entertainment (0.170) assessment of -0.150 shopping (0.143) Constant 1 -2.604** -4.123*** -3.237*** -3.399*** -3.970*** (1.161) (1.210) (1.193) (1.127) (1.208) Constant 2 -1.015 -2.528** -1.664* -1.827* -2.397** (1.158) (1.203) (1.190) (1.212) (1.201) Constant 3 0.182 -1.361 -0.491 -0.657 -1.228 (1.163) (1.204) (1.193) (1.213) (1.203) Goodness of fit log likelihood -301.476 -373.696 -374.426 -374.568 -374.032 number of obs. 417 417 417 417 417 LR (df) 129.46(16)*** 125.03(16)*** 123.56(16)*** 123.28(16) 124.35(16) McKelvey & 0.319 0.310 0.305 0.304 0.307 Zavoina's R2 test for parallel 65.88(32)*** 47.97(32)** 50.29(32)** 59.22(32)*** 48.86(32)** assumption (df) Notes_Titles: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

12 Due to the violation of the parallel assumption, general ordinal logit model, not imposing the constraints of parallel regressions for certain variables, is adopted to further explore potential determinants of length of stay. In Model 6, age, square of age, the group of transportation variables, the group of motivation variables, and the group of past visitation variables are constrained with parallel assumption, which means the coefficients of these variables are the same for each outcome category (each category of length of stay). The estimation result does not vary too much from those of Model 1- 5. For the unconstrained variables, the marginal effects for each outcome categories are not the same, and there is estimated coefficient for each category. To make the interpretation more straightforward, odds ratio is applied to explain the estimation result of each coefficient. Judging from the result, for a unit increase in distance, the odds of a shorter length of stay outcome compared with a longer length outcome are changed by the factor exp(-0.0004)=0.9996, holding all other variables constant. Table 3. Estimation results of general ordinal logit model Model 6 1 day vs.2 days and 1-2 day vs. 3 days and more 1-3 days vs. 4 days and more more Distance 0.0004* (0.0002) Age -0.137*** (0.048) age_squre 0.002*** (0.0006) package tour 0.778*** 0.876** -0.0009 (0.264) (0.353) (0.474) Transportation (df) 33.17(3)*** coach/bus -1.707*** (0.407) self-drive -2.342*** (0.422) Airplane -0.353 (1.005) Motivation (df) 45.13(5)*** Vacation 0.688*** (0.258) VFR 1.687*** (0.414) Business 1.016** (0.453) Research 3.449*** (0.617) Study 1.596*** (0.509) past visitation (df) 27.71(3)*** first-time visit -1.872*** (0.405) 1 time to 2 times -0.446 (0.490) 3 to 4 times -1.309*** (0.387)

assessment of 0.273* 0.569*** 0.887*** accommodation (0.158) (0.206) (0.285) Constant 2.689** 0.143 -0.597

13 (1.175) (1.297) (1.595) Goodness of fit log likelihood -365.229 Number of 417 responders LR chi2(df) 111.02(20)*** Pseudo R2 0.163 To further elaborate the estimation, graphing predicted probabilities for each outcome is useful. Figure 1 demonstrates the non-linear effect of age, and it indicates that when age is less than 45, the probability of long duration decreases while the probability of one day stay increases with age, and the situation is inverse when more than 45. 8 . 6 . y t i l i b 4 a . b o r P 2 . 0

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Age

1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days and more

Figure 1. Probability change of length of stay with age

Conclusion The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of traveling distance along with other important variables on length of stay by the survey of Yixing tourists. The general ordinal logit model is used to estimate the factors affecting duration. The findings of this study show traveling distance, age (with the square of age), package tour, transportation, motivation, past visitation, assessment of accommodation to be influential factors. To elaborate the estimation result, the paper analyses the relationship between traveling distance, age and length of stay by using the probability the model calculated.

References Alegre, J., & Pou, L. (2006). The length of stay in the demand for tourism. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1343-1355. Alegre, J., & Pou, L. (2007). Microeconomic determinants of the duration of stayof tourists. In Á. Matias, P. Nijkamp & P. Neto (Eds.), Advances in Modern Tourism Research (pp. 181-206). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag Andreu, L., Kozak, M., Avci, N., & Cifter, N. (2005). Market segmentation by motivations to travel: British tourists visiting Turkey. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(1), 1-14. Archer, B. H., & Shea, S. (1975). Length of stay problems in tourist research. Journal of Travel Research, 13(3), 8-10.

14 Brant, R. (1990). Assessing Proportionality in the Proportional Odds Model for Ordinal Logistic Regression. Biometrics, 46(4), 1171-1178. Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (2002). Tourism constraints among Israeli Seniors. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 106-123. Gokovali, U., Bahar, O., & Kozak, M. (2007). Determinants of length of stay: A practical use of survival analysis. Tourism Management, 28(3), 736-746. Gomes de Menezes, A., Moniz, A., & Cabral Vieira, J. (2008). The determinants of length of stay of tourists in the Azores Tourism Economics, 14(1), 205-222. Kim, S. S., & Prideaux, B. (2005). Marketing implications arising from a comparative study of international pleasure tourist motivations and other travel-related characteristics of visitors to Korea. Tourism Management, 26(3), 347-357. Lawson, R. (1991). Patterns of tourist expenditure and types of vacation across the family life cycle. Journal of Travel Research, 29(4), 12-18. Lim, C. (1997). Review of international tourism demand models. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 835-849. Mak, J., & Moncur, J. (1979). The choice of journey destinations and length of stay: A micro analysis. The Review of Regional Studies, 10(2), 38-48. Mak, J., Moncur, J., & Yonamine, D. (1977). Determinants of visitor expenditures and visitor lengths of stay: A cross-section analysis of U.S. visitors to Hawaii. Journal of Travel Research, 15(3), 5-8. Money, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism Management, 24(2), 191. Oppermann, M. (1995). Travel life cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 535-552. Oppermann, M. (1997). First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand. Tourism Management, 18(3), 177-181. Seaton, A., & Palmer, C. (1997). Understanding VFR tourism behaviour: The first five years of the United Kingdom tourism survey. Tourism Management, 18(6), 345-355. Silberman, J. (1985). A demand function for length of stay: The evidence from Virginia beach. Journal of Travel Research, Spring, 16-23. Smith, S. L. J. (1995). Tourism Analysis: A Handbook (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman. Song, H., & Li, G. (2008). Tourism demand modelling and forecasting—A review of recent research Tourism Management, 29(2), 203-220. Song, H., & Witt, S. (2000). Tourism demand modelling and forecasting modern econometric approaches. Oxford: Pergamon. Thunberg, E. M., & Crotts, J. C. (1994). Factors affecting travelers' overnight stay behavior. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3(1), 1-17. Uysal, M., & McDonald, C. D. (1989). Visitor segmentation by trip index. Journal of Travel Research, 27(3), 38-42. Uysal, M., McDonald, C. D., & O'Leary, J. T. (1988). Length of stay: A macro analysis for cross- country skiing trips. Journal of Travel Research, 26(3), 29-31. Walsh, R. G., & Davitt, G. J. (1983). A demand function for length of stay on ski trips to Aspen. Journal of Travel Research, 21(4), 23-29.